Event Recap: AI and Copyright in the Entertainment Industry – Smith

Speakers:

• Dave Davis, Dave Davis, Chief Content Officer, Protege
• Matthew Dysart, Partner, Greenberg Glusker
• Andrew Stroud, General Counsel, Epylon (moderator)

By Mallory Smith, Student Reporter

The panel on AI & Copyright in the Entertainment Industry featured Andrew Stroud, Dave Davis, and Matthew Dysart, who discussed the rapidly evolving legal and creative landscape surrounding AI-generated works. Andrew Stroud opened by reaffirming the current state of U.S. copyright law: only human beings can own a copyright. Citing the well-known “monkey selfie” case (Naruto v. Slater), he emphasized that entirely AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright protection (e.g. the recent AI generated Coca-Cola commercial). Stroud believes clearer guidance may emerge within the next one to two years, but he is skeptical that the Copyright Office or the courts will deliver definitive answers. Instead, he expects Congress will ultimately need to address the issue, though he noted that legislative gridlock makes this an uncertain timeline. As of today, the rule remains the same that works created solely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Matthew Dysart gave some practical advice for creators. If you come up with the idea yourself and use AI as a tool to help bring it to life, you have a much better shot at claiming copyright. Basically the more human thought and creativity you put in before using AI the safer you are. The problem is that AI keeps improving, which makes it harder to show what parts came from you and what parts came from the model. Still there is a huge and growing market for AI tools even with all the legal confusion.

The panel then got into the lawsuits around AI training data. Dysart said there is a strong push from rights holders to argue that using copyrighted content for training should not count as fair use. He brought up the Anthropic case as an example of how intense this fight is becoming. Dave Davis added that AI models operate across the entire world and that every country has different rules, so the legal situation is even more complicated than it looks. Dysart said politics around the world might end up shaping the outcome just as much as the law does. One major issue they all agreed on is that most creators will never know if their work was used to train an AI system. They hope Congress eventually steps in to create some clarity and transparency.

They also talked about Sora which is one of the most advanced AI video models out there. Davis said he is excited about the potential of AI and he is also a little scared of how fast it is moving. He said creators really only have three choices: Ignore it, fight it or get involved with it. He personally thinks getting involved makes the most sense. Dysart also felt that Sora is a good sign for creators and that there is nothing to lose by exploring new tools.

Toward the end they touched on how companies are starting to build new licensing structures to protect themselves in this fast moving AI environment. Dysart mentioned biometric data and how some tech can now be traced back to specific people, which brings a whole new group of legal issues creators need to think about.

Davis wrapped up the panel by saying he is excited for what AI can do especially in film but also scared of how unpredictable it is. The whole panel agreed that AI is creating both huge opportunities and major risks and that the law is moving much slower than the tech itself.

In closing, Davis summarized the prevailing sentiment. He is excited about the creative possibilities AI introduces, particularly in filmmaking, but also concerned by the speed at which the technology is advancing. The panel agreed that AI presents both significant opportunities and major uncertainties, and while the entertainment industry is already adapting, the legal framework is still struggling to keep pace.